"You raise an interesting question, and I would love the idea of the 2A riding supreme over all the other Amendments, as the only one that applies to the laws of the States. But I've never heard of that as being the intent of the document, have you?"
Let me skip Amendment 1 and 2, and illustrate how absurd other laws would read if the writers kept to the phrase "Congress shall make no law," and why this and other amendments were constructed to make sure that the people's rights were to be honored EVERYWHERE in this nation.
The Third Amendment states:
" No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
If this Amendment had started with "Congress shall make no law," it would have left it open for States to allow for the quartering officers of the state in private residences. Absurd isn't it? But it wasn't worded that way, and we accept without question the wording of the Third Amendment as a flat prohibition of ANYONE from forcing private owners to house military personnel.
It leaves no wiggle room for States, and subsequently Counties or Cities to decide otherwise.
Let's look at the 4th Amendment.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Again, this didn't start with "Congress shall make no law," and we accept as a finality that NO ONE shall make laws which would compromise the right of the people to be secure in their houses, persons, papers, and effects. Again, this leaves no wiggle room for States, Counties and Cities to decide otherwise.
And now, the 5th Amendment.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Again, this doesn't start with "Congress shall make no law," as it is evident that the the Amendment prohibits ANYONE from passing laws taking away our right not to testify against ourselves, or taking away our right to life, liberty, or property without due process. We understand these are OUR rights, and all governmental agencies are flatly PROHIBITED from altering them to our detriment.
Back to the 2nd Amendment. It didn't start with "Congress shall make no law," and it's damned fortunate for us that it didn't start this way. Despite the rhetoric of the left, there is no wiggle room in this Amendment either, to allow States, Counties, or Cities to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. There is a unifying theme to the bill of rights. The theme is that they are OUR RIGHTS, and all governmental agencies are FORBIDDEN to violate them.
Okay, so I looked up "Does Bill of Rights . . ." and auto-complete offered me "apply to the states". I'm not always a fan of Wikipedia, but this link seemed pretty user-friendly and also scholarly. It has a time-line of when parts of the Bill of Rights were "incorporated against" the States. The article says the Supreme Court in 1833 flatly held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to State governments, but to Congress.
A case in New York that was decided by the USSC in 1925, Gitlow v. New York, is said to be the first where the Court held that States were bound to protect freedom of speech because of an obligation to incorporate the Bill of Rights. Through the rest of the 20th century, more and more provisions of the Bill of Rights were incorporated to the States and localities, rather than the Federal government. Judging quickly from the names, it was mostly liberal judges supporting liberal causes, but that's not necessarily here or there.
Unless the article is completely upside-down on its facts, it would appear that the freedoms of the Bill of Rights in earlier times were defended within States and localities through the kind of "peer pressure" of other American localities. On the desired result, there's no dispute possible among real Americans. But it appears that the liberty enshrined in American civic and legal culture did not come about because of the incorporation doctrine. It seems to have preceded that doctrine by 150 years. Let me know what you think!